I don't know enough about the situation in Europe, but the USA will definitely be moving to a period of more aggressive racism in my opinion. I will discuss three factors.

1) It's within the country's history, as a consistent pattern, that the appeal and breadth of racism increases when economic times are bad. There are many reasons why that is, but among them is the fact that it's an effective tool for the ruling class to placate poor white people, and is cheaper than enabling them to be less poor. For example, the Bacon rebellion saw an alliance of White and Blacks protest the excesses of the elites in 17th century Virginia, so the elites placated the Whites there by cracking down on the Blacks.

Here's a quote from former US President Lyndon Johnson, that describes a lot of American sociology:
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
Discussion here:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opin ... emacy.html

2) There may also, separately, be a fundamental human need for identity. I mean, I'm almost certain that there is, though I don't understand it fully. For most of the post-war era, America had a satisfactory cultural identity, it was a land of ideas where anybody who worked hard could make it and often did. The violent racism against Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews, Blacks, Japanese, etc that was common in the early 20th century became much less common. The land was prosperous, and people had a genuine and meaningful identity, "I'm an American" meant something (so did "I'm a man"), something positive, it was the country that helped defeat both fascism and communism, that put a person on the moon, that was responsible for most Nobel prizes and most medical advances such as the eradication of polio, etc. It was a truly wonderful identity to have, and people could share it communally and be happy together.

That identity is largely gone. The country has been economically mismanaged under each of Clinton, Bush, and Obama, Clinton being the worst in my opinion. The statistics that show low unemployment and low inflation are largely doctored. In fact, employment is actually low, and inflation is actually high. Class mobility is dropping. Debts are increasing. Infant mortality and maternal mortality are increasing. The suicide rate is increasing. The American dominance in science and engineering is dropping as well. We're left with parallel epidemics of heroin addiction, video game addiction, sugar addiction, pro sports worship, increased pornography use, social media addiction, and an endless array of anti-depressants, anti-ADHD- and anti-anxiety meds being widely prescribed. The elites of the Roman Empire, with their "bread and circuses" political strategy, never came close to this. Nearly everybody understands deep down that awful war crimes and damages to the natural environment are being done with their tax dollars even if they deny it. So overall, the cultural identity is on weaker ground than it was 20 or 40 years ago, so it is completely unsurprising that racial identity would increase. People have a need for identity.

3) The Democratic Party's, and generally the left's, political strategy has been to build a coalition of victims. It is an absolutely fantastic political strategy in the short-term. However, in the long-term, it is not stable, though most of them do not seem to understand this. You can't have a majority of the population or the effective politically-franchised group being victims, that is logically inconsistent (if they're all victims then they cannot take power), and dehumanizing.

The actual truth is that most of us go through tens of thousands of interactions in our lives, and we are all both victims and predators at various points in time. And for most of us, the balance is close to equal.

I was at a recent book reading by some women author that had the potential to be interesting. She wrote a book about dating. I went to the book reading as a curiosity. I didn't know the details of her thinking. This woman is a writer and a comedian, I didn't find her funny, but most of the room did. Anyway, it was clear that she believes herself to be a victim. She referred to how men have all the power, and that was one of her explanations for how men and women behave differently in relationships.

She is, unfortunately, delusional. This woman, as far as I can tell, is a healthy, wealthy, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, about thirty years old, cis, heterosexual woman. She has a high IQ -- she is paid to be a writer, and she won regional math competitions in high school. She went to fucking Harvard for her undergrad. She said that she's happy never to invest much time into doing things that she's bad at. She is "privileged", she is, in fact, at the ~99th percentile of human privilege. In spite of that, she considers herself a victim. She talked about how dating was hard at Harvard because supposedly, the men there controlled the dating market. She said that "white men, who are about 30% of the population, have all the power, what's up with that?" Her understanding of human relations is ... incomplete. She is in fact more powerful than the vast majority of white men in the world and in the USA. She is just oblivious to that, in part as victim ideology is pervasive.

I suspect that her perception of white men having all of the power is due to her own perceptions of the men around her. She talked about relationships, and how she likes sex and how she wants to marry a rich man. I think that most men are invisible to her. I think that she is completely oblivious to the existence of the white men who work as her plumbers, who run the snowplows near her place in the winter, who carry her wood or whatever when she goes to Home Depot, who is the system administrator at her work place, who work as the police officers and firefighters who keep her neighborhood safe, etc. They're invisible to her. They don't exist. She only notices the white men who are her bosses, her doctors, her lawyers, etc and she thinks "white men have all of the power." Though she won regional math competitions in high school, she doesn't seem to clue in that those guys are in fact not 30% of the population. In a battle between IQ and ideology, ideology almost always wins.

So after listening to her talk, even I was radicalized for a few days. Imagine the effect on other people. Identity politics is a two-edged sword.

Asides:

i) I'd prefer if the Democratic Party ran on an economics-focused platform. I suspect that they will not.
ii) The killer in this scenario was Australian, not American. I may have some misconceptions but for the most part, life is better in Australia. As in, socio-economic life is better. This guy was likely radicalized by the Internet and American media, which shows how ideas can be powerful. They can affect somebody outside of the regime from which the ideas were developed.

Leftists and liberals in countries that have pretty much no Jews also support these kinds of policies. How do you explain that? You are employing flawed reasoning and arriving at erroneous conclusions. Are you really blaming Jews for leftists and liberals supporting left leaning policies?

Jewish people have historically disproportionately contributed to intellectual, academic, and cultural life in the western countries. Some say that Ashkenazi have a genetic perturbation for higher IQ, but I think that it's largely because Jews have a tradition of community and scholarship, that they predominantly live in cities, and were also historically barred from other areas of civic life.

So, for both good and bad ideas out there, all of the ideas and notions that are widespread in the western countries, you'll almost always find that there were some Jewish people involved. Jews have won roughly 25% of Nobel prizes. The list of Jewish philosophers and thinkers includes Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Sigmeund Freud, Albert Einstein, Murray Rothbard, Richard Feynman, etc. Wherever you have either good or bad ideas, you'll likely find a Jewish influence. What @That Guy does is he takes that observations, which he couples to a lot of a fabricated histories and quotes, to come up with the idea that all of society's problems are due to an organized Jewish conspiracy that is operating in the shadows.

The best cure for his Dunning-Kruger syndrome would be for him to study actual history, and to study it rigorously and in detail. He's made some curious comments recently such as "Hitler and Ghandi were best friends" (false) and "No historian ever discusses Germany in the period 1933-1939" (false). However, that would take a lot of effort and would not necessarily be comforting, so he is unlikely to do so. He is unfortunately, as or more likely to go on a shooting spree than he is to actually think about things.

Leftists and liberals in countries that have pretty much no Jews also support these kinds of policies. How do you explain that? You are employing flawed reasoning and arriving at erroneous conclusions. Are you really blaming Jews for leftists and liberals supporting left leaning policies?

Ultra wealthy individuals tend to support mass immigration of labor and and free market economic policies in general to a great extent. More specifically, they are almost unanimously globalists in every regard, certainly the overwhelming number of them. Of course it's because they are the section of the population that solely benefits from it financially, and on top of that can use it as a means of virtue signalling particularly as shit heads in Silicon Valley do while they talk about the need for the "best (cheapest) talent".

The vast majority of Jews in the United States are Ashkenazi, who of course have by an extraordinary margin higher average IQs and significantly more individuals at the front end of the bell curve. IQ is an excellent predictor of income, even in terms of moving up brackets for the ultra-wealthy, millionare, decamillionare, billionares etc with plenty of data to back this up. And anyone with a brain can realise and investigate for themselves to find that Jews tend to be hugely over-represented in positions of power and those with giant pay packets, the media, business and politics, because people with high IQs in general are hugely over-represented in these positions.

@That Guy's issue in my opinion is that he resorts to a blame the Jews with a vague conspiracy rather than a blame the rich which tend to hold the pro-globalist views because those pro-globalist views are what got them into the position they're in largely, and they benefit from continuing or embracing further globalist economic and immigration policy. It is indeed an erroneous conclusion to suggest this is related to being Jewish. Jewish people tend to be smarter, smarter people tend to do better in terms of careers and income including at the absolute top end, those at the top end of financial success support and benefit from globalist policies. Also like you mention mainstream leftists and liberals support globalist economic and immigration policy at least in 2019 for the most part, this clearly isn't a Jewish problem.

On the overall topic, although I totally disagree with the tastelessness of the remark of Fraser Anning:

the reality is that immigration of those from Islamic nations is of no benefit to the West, its a charity case towards a group of people that from the fundamentals of their religion hate the West and Western values, it causes friction between native ethnic and religious/values groups which never dissipates and causes justifiable hate between two groups that hold views of such extreme differences that extreme emotional conflict is mandatory. If you have a group of people living in countries that fundamentally hate Democracy, are against womens rights, allow honour kills, killings of journalists, violent, authoritarianism, tribal warfare and hate gay people from not just an ethical but legal standpoint, then put those immigrants in a country like New Zealand which is the virtual opposite, only an despicably stupid individual can't forsee problems. Its not the fault of the dead Muslims about the disgusting act that occurred, but it certainly its a problem that never should have been a possibility to begin with as a sensible immigration policy wouldn't allow Muslims into a Western nation.

Disgustingly many Western nations at this point ban or don't enforce recording of religion, race or immigration status in their statistics on violence and crime either, which certainly makes it convenient to throw the hands up and say "well we don't know for sure there's a problem". They do have three times the unemployment rate of any religious group or the non-religious group in New Zealand however for example. From what I can tell again conveniently they have no crime rate data in New Zealand recording religion.

Ultra wealthy individuals tend to support mass immigration of labor and and free market economic policies in general to a great extent. More specifically, they are almost unanimously globalists in every regard, certainly the overwhelming number of them. Of course are because they are the section of the population that solely benefits from it financially, and on top of that can use it as a means of virtue signalling particularly as shit heads in Silicon Valley do while they talk about the need for the "best (cheapest) talent".

The vast majority of Jews in the United States are Ashkenazi, who of course have by an extraordinary margin higher average IQs and significantly more individuals at the front end of the bell curve. IQ is an excellent predictor of income, even in terms of moving up brackets for the ultra-wealthy, millionare, decamillionare, billionares etc with plenty of data to back this up. And anyone with a brain can realise and investigate for themselves to find that Jews tend to be hugely over-represented in positions of power and those with giant pay packets, the media, business and politics, because people with high IQs in general are hugely over-represented in these positions.

That Guys issue in my opinion is that he resorts to a blame the Jews with a vague conspiracy rather than a blame the rich which tend to hold the pro-globalist views because those pro-globalist views are what got them into the position they're in largely, and they benefit from continuing or embracing further globalist economic and immigration policy. It is indeed an erroneous conclusion to suggest this is related to being Jewish. Jewish people tend to be smarter, smarter people tend to do better in terms of careers and income including at the absolute top end, those at the top end of financial success support and benefit from globalist policies. Also like you mention mainstream leftists and liberals support globalist economic and immigration policy at least in 2019 for the most part, this clearly isn't a Jewish problem.

On the overall topic, although I totally disagree with the tastelessness of the remark of Fraser Anning:

the reality is that immigration of those from Islamic nations is of no benefit to the West, its a charity case towards a group of people that from the fundamentals of their religion hate the West and Western values, it causes friction between native ethnic and religious/values groups which never dissipates and causes justifiable hate between two groups that hold views of such extreme differences that extreme emotional conflict is mandatory. If you have a group of people living in countries that fundamentally hate Democracy, are against womens rights, allow honour kills, killings of journalists, violent, authoritarianism, tribal warfare and hate gay people from not just an ethical but legal standpoint, then put those immigrants in a country like New Zealand which is the virtual opposite, only an despicably stupid individual can't forsee problems. Its not the fault of the dead Muslims about the disgusting act that occurred, but it certainly its a problem that never should have been a possibility to begin with as a sensible immigration policy wouldn't allow Muslims into a Western nation.

Disgustingly many Western nations at this point ban or don't enforce recording of religion, race or immigration status in their statistics on violence and crime either, which certainly makes it convenient to throw the hands up and say "well we don't know for sure there's a problem". They do have three times the unemployment rate of any religious group or the non-religious group in New Zealand however for example. From what I can tell again conveniently they have no crime rate data in New Zealand recording religion.

A lot of the comments that you're making against Muslim immigration were almost made to advocate against immigration from Ireland, Italy, and Eastern Europe to Canada and the USA in the late 19th and early 20th century. There was some truth to them, but I think that at this point we can safely say that those immigration waves worked out for Canada and the USA.

Alberta, for example, is the Canadian province that is the home of @That Guy, it is one of the three prairie provinces and one of four western Canadian provinces. Back in the early 20th century, the WASP power groups there railed against immigration. They hated the Lithuanians and the Ukrainians who were coming in. They wanted Western Canada to be a natural extension of the British Empire, with people from England, and maybe Scotland, Wales, and Ireland too. We know how that worked out.

I expect that Muslim immigration will similarly work out for the western countries in the long run. I have a strong bias, in that the Muslims that I know are hard-working and intelligent. Regardless, immigration is a selection effect, and historically, people from first or second generation families are often more likely to be exceptional, as they have that extra motivation. I expect that we'll see a larger and larger fraction of Muslim in places such as academia, STEM, and the arts in the next twenty-five years.

I completely agree with your first paragraph. Globalism predominantly benefits the rich, and among them, the richest. They don't realize that their wealth is largely tied to the nation states in which they accumulated their wealth. The world's richest people are predominantly American, and they will lose their status if America loses hers. If (for example) China replaces America, she won't be welcoming American billionaires to have them grace China with their genius, rather, she will elevate Chinese billionaires to take their status. However, many of them are too fucking stupid and narcissistic to realize this, they believe that their status is due to their exceptional talent and work ethic, and that they're entirely self made.

Democracy is an illusion sold to dumb Goyim, nothing called Democracy. If you read history you'll find that best thing has been Monarchy. Democracy is choosing between two or more candidates and nearly all of them are corrupted filth who abuse the system with their flawed ideologies and have agendas behind them. They also don't give a flying fuck about the countries they're ruling as they'd not be ruling it anymore after 4 years, opposite to the kings in Monarchy system who used to have their sons rule after them and they ruled for a much longer period of time so they had to care about how their country is. Not to mention your vote doesn't actually matter anyways.

Women rights/feminism you say ? I mean everyone knows that they push for degeneracy, putting women on a pedestal, the emasculation of men, destroying morals and traditional families, pushing sexual revolution which fucked the social structure of society and installed hypergamy, etc.

I don't know about what "honour kills" mean, so i can't answer that, but it's probably some other dumb shit.

killings of journalists ? You mean like the journalist called Jamal Khashoggi who was killed by Salman of Saudi Arabia the traitor, puppet of the west who's pushing degeneracy and liberalism ?

violent, Some Blacks are violent too with their gangs, some White are violent too with their stormfront/nazi ideology, so it's not like without the Muslims you'd be peaceful butterflies or anything.

Authoritarianism ? Authoritarianism doesn't exist in Islam and nearly all the countries here are under DICTATORISM and ruled by dictators and military thanks to the cucked west who's supporting them financially and military to keep killing us and fucking our lives over. It's all your fault from the beginning, so don't complain now.

Don't also know about tribal warfare probably some other dumb shit isn't related to Islam.

And not only we who hate gays, but Jews and Christians hate them as well . Difference is that Jews are protected and can say whatever they want and that Christians are fucking pussies because they're getting dominated everyday by Atheism and have to appeal to the people anyway they can to save their dying religion even by abandoning and changing their scriptures and morals.

Besides, gays are mentally ill worthless faggots and the genetic bullshit doesn't make sense from neither a creationist nor an evolutionary perspective and it is only made to allow their degenerate behavior and brainwash the dumb Goyim.

(((The American Psychological association))) says that being gay is not a mental illness, but at the same time they say that "traditional masculinity" is a mental illness

You know plenty of Muslims that are not hard working and not highly intelligent, they just don't spring to mind.

I can't tell if you're deliberately trying to point a mirror to my face. If so: good job, it's almost convincing, but it did make me reflect and it's an impressive attempt. It's also funny.

I stand by my prediction, I expect Muslim immigration to end up as beneficial for the English-speaking countries ( which I am more familiar with), in the long run. I provided some larger reasoning in my post, and in some other posts elsewhere that you might not have read.

LOL. Thank you. I will have to make a Dr. Sues illustration book some day. I just have
to work on some Russian scenes and take pictures of the Trump plaza, and American
prisons where Donald Trump's campaign managers work.

I can't tell if you're deliberately trying to point a mirror to my face. If so: good job, it's almost convincing, but it did make me reflect and it's an impressive attempt. It's also funny.

I stand by my prediction, I expect Muslim immigration to end up as beneficial for the English-speaking countries ( which I am more familiar with), in the long run. I provided some larger reasoning in my post, and in some other posts elsewhere that you might not have read.

Dude i'm a Muslim myself and i say that immigration is going to fuck everything soon at this rate. Even In Islam we're told to not live in places where Islam isn't dominant because it would bring really bad results at the end.

Two contradictory cultures can never coexist together no matter what. It's like putting some water on fire and expecting them to benefit each others, which is impossible.

Best thing would happen is that the west would stop supporting their puppets they hired to kill us and destroy the middle east and start fixing the countries they destroyed and then send back immigrants to their countries, but that won't ever happened as i explained in multiple posts before.

Dude i'm a Muslim myself and i say that immigration is going to fuck everything soon at this rate. Even In Islam we're told to not live in places where Islam isn't dominant because it would bring really bad results at the end.

Two contradictory cultures can never coexist together no matter what. It's like putting some water on fire and expecting them to benefit each others, which is impossible.

Best thing would happen is that the west would stop supporting their puppets they hired to kill us and destroy the middle east and start fixing the countries they destroyed and then send back immigrants to their countries, but that won't ever happened as i explained in multiple posts before.

The United States is largely built off of immigration, and thus diversity. A lot of protestants and catholics (then considered totally different religions) fled the religious persecution of Europe. That is what people mean when they say that "the USA was founded off religious freedom". It subsequently brought in Jews, Italians, Irish (both Catholics), and Slavs (Christian Orthodox) in the early 20th century, and those groups had a hard time assimilating. A lot of South Asians and East Asians came in the second half of the 20th century, same story, and now many of them are successful and contributing immensely.

That is historically true of the west as a whole. Spain, during the convivencia which was the period where Jews, Catholics, and Muslims lived together, was the intellectual, economic, and political capital of the world. Cordoba was the New York and Boston of its time. Spain expelled the Jews and Muslims and subsequently declined. The most intellectually dynamic parts of Europe in the next few hundred years, such as Italy during the Renaissance, or Germany in the 19th century, also had significant diversity.

Similarly to Spain after they kicked out the Jews and Muslims, you can look at China in the 17th and 18th century. It turned inward, and stagnated. Japan in the 20th century also limited foreign influences. It was able to catch up to the west, but not to surpass it. They have a conservative culture, theres less risk taking and entrepreneurialism there.

Diversity can be both good and bad. Yes, it can lead to social instability, but it's also an empirical prerequisite to technological and philosophical ingenuity. The greatest advances have always come from open societies.

I can't tell if you're deliberately trying to point a mirror to my face. If so: good job, it's almost convincing, but it did make me reflect and it's an impressive attempt. It's also funny.

I stand by my prediction, I expect Muslim immigration to end up as beneficial for the English-speaking countries ( which I am more familiar with), in the long run. I provided some larger reasoning in my post, and in some other posts elsewhere that you might not have read.

The United States is largely built off of immigration, and thus diversity. A lot of protestants and catholics (then considered totally different religions) fled the religious persecution of Europe. That is what people mean when they say that "the USA was founded off religious freedom". It subsequently brought in Jews, Italians, Irish (both Catholics), and Slavs (Christian Orthodox) in the early 20th century, and those groups had a hard time assimilating. A lot of South Asians and East Asians came in the second half of the 20th century, same story, and now many of them are successful and contributing immensely.

That is historically true of the west as a whole. Spain, during the convivencia which was the period where Jews, Catholics, and Muslims lived together, was the intellectual, economic, and political capital of the world. Cordoba was the New York and Boston of its time. Spain expelled the Jews and Muslims and subsequently declined. The most intellectually dynamic parts of Europe in the next few hundred years, such as Italy during the Renaissance, or Germany in the 19th century, also had significant diversity.

Similarly to Spain after they kicked out the Jews and Muslims, you can look at China in the 17th and 18th century. It turned inward, and stagnated. Japan in the 20th century also limited foreign influences. It was able to catch up to the west, but not to surpass it. They have a conservative culture, theres less risk taking and entrepreneurialism there.

Diversity can be both good and bad. Yes, it can lead to social instability, but it's also an empirical prerequisite to technological and philosophical ingenuity. The greatest advances have always come from open societies.

Let's be real here, nearly all the world hate and oppress Muslims. Whether they're Jews, Christians, Hindu, Atheists, etc, they'll consider Islam their mortal enemy and are willing to cooperate with their other enemies (like the Jews with Christians) only to destroy Islam. Say the reason is media or terrorism or whatever you want to believe, but the result is the same.

That didn't happened with any other minority except the Jews and you know how the Jews were treated because of it. It's about two things, who's in power and who's the majority of society and Muslims are neither one of those things so it's no wonder they suffer badly because of it.

And now it's different than before though. People hate Islam the most because they think it opposes their idea of what a "modern" "civilized" society should be (and they're right, Islam opposes degeneracy and acting like animals) and the (((phenomenon))) of terrorist attacks and the heating the media does everyday puts more oil to the fire and is going to bring catastrophic results in the near future.

Diversity is only good when you have two different groups agreeing on the same thing, but other than that, humans wouldn't accept anyone to oppose their ideologies and way of thinking because of man's ego and pride.

I didn't say that, i said that you can't say that "plenty" of Muslims are not hard working and are low IQ because Islam isn't a race and no studies were made about this.

I said he would know plenty of them, I wasn't making a statement on the general demographics of all Muslims. Just a statement that he's selectively thinking of the positive immigration stories in his mind.

OK, so I'll explain my point, so that you don't think that I'm coockoo.

At the top of this page, I described a woman for whom I speculated that most white men are invisible, because she only sees certain kinds of people. I thought that you might be doing the same thing to me and deliberately so as it was only a few posts apart, saying that I might only be seeing certain kinds of people, and forgetting the rest.

It's possible. Honestly though, most of the people that I meet are academics, which its a huge selection bias. I wish that I could meet a broader range of people. It's really hard to make friends as an adult and as a vagabond.

You did make me recall some asshole called Ibrahim that I met many years ago, like 15 years ago. I hope that Ibrahim is the exception rather than the norm. He tried to make me say a prayer once over the phone, but I declined to say it, in spite of his pressure. I don't know what the prayer was, but I think that it was the two sentences to convert to Islam. I never again spoke to Ibrahim.

A lot of the comments that you're making against Muslim immigration were almost made to advocate against immigration from Ireland, Italy, and Eastern Europe to Canada and the USA in the late 19th and early 20th century. There was some truth to them, but I think that at this point we can safely say that those immigration waves worked out for Canada and the USA.

I think you are mistaken on this. Just because some groups of immigrants successfully assimilated to the US, it doesn't mean all groups of immigrants will assimilate. You also have to take into account the differences within these groups. Muslims and Hindus couldn't assimilate with each other despite living together for 1000 years and Pakistan was born. Muslims are only 15% of India's population right now. As their population grows larger, India will become increasingly unstable. Kashmir is the ONLY Indian state with Muslim majority. It's also the only state demanding separation from India. That's not a co-incidence. Muslims hold such a different world view that they can't peacefully co-exist with non-Muslims within the same borders. Western countries are committing cultural suicide by allowing Muslims to immigrate.

I think you are mistaken on this. Just because some groups of immigrants successfully assimilated to the US, it doesn't mean all groups of immigrants will assimilate. You also have to take into account the differences within these groups. Muslims and Hindus couldn't assimilate with each other despite living together for 1000 years and Pakistan was born. Muslims are only 15% of India's population right now. As their population grows larger, India will become increasingly unstable. Kashmir is the ONLY Indian state with Muslim majority. It's also the only state demanding separation from India. That's not a co-incidence. Muslims hold such a different world view that they can't peacefully co-exist with non-Muslims within the same borders. Western countries are committing cultural suicide by allowing Muslims to immigrate.

They were successful because they successfully managed to kill 50 million native American, enslave the rest along with Blacks. If that's what it takes to become successful, then i don't want me or my people to ever become successful.

And dude no offence, but India is a shithole regardless of Muslims. Stop coping with your own failure and "send bobs and vagana" and blaming it all on Muslims. India is a walking meme in nearly every country in the world including mine, and almost every Indian (currycel) i've known hates himself, his people and his country with passion and they're never proud of who they're.

It's laughable when a country known for street-shitting, harassing women online, sometimes fucking animals, drinking cow-piss (like my Indian friend's uncle), and literally eating their own shit blaming their failure on some people who literally used to rule the whole world and contributed much more than any currycel has ever done.